The 17-55 is the equivalent of a 27-88/4.5 IS lens on FF, so the 24-105/4 IS will give more range at either end of the zoom with an option of a vaguely shallower DoF. But while it's marginally better, it's not going to give your images the big step up you might be looking for. A 2.8 zoom will make a noticeable difference, and the 24-70 II appears to be sharper than any L prime in that focal length range at 2.8 - but it can't do what a good fast prime can do in terms of subject isolation, and it can't compete with the best in terms of bokeh quality.

If you regularly use your 11-16 at its widest setting, the Canon 14-24 might be worth waiting for. If its anything like the Nikon 14-24, it'll be at least as good (and as fast) as the 14L II, or any Canon prime wider than 24mm. If you can, why not keep hold of the 11-16 and 7D as your ultrawide option until then?

Thanks for the comments RS. I don't use my 11-16 to much. I bought it because I'm a Real Estate agent as well. So I also book shoots for other Realtors for photos for their MLS listings. It's a nice little side income. It works fairly well for that on my 7d, however the issue regarding noise in the shadows exists for me when shooting the 7d, even at f/2.8. I'm hoping the 5d3 will solve those issues for me. That being said, I suppose I won't need to go as wide on ff to acheive similar results with the Real Estate work.

I'll need to address that as well, but perhaps not as soon...

The full frame sensor won't solve all your problems because you will not have enough depth of field if you're shooting real estate shots at f/2.8. Do you shoot these with a tripod and/or flash ? For these issues, look into lighting and/or support. Look for a lens that doesn't have too horrible distortion characteristics at the desired focal lengths.

I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...

All Canon lenses other than the fisheyes are designed to be rectilinear. Having said that, the two existing full frame ultrawide zooms (16-35 and 17-40) have plenty of distortion, so they're not perfectly rectilinear. The EF-S 10-22 is much better from the distortion point of view, but that doesn't help you at all.

A good prime or correcting in post are your options. It'll be interesting to see what the rumoured 14-24 is like from the distortion point of view, but we'll have to wait for reviews before we know - Canon usually publish MTF charts and say nothing about distortion.

If you want to go for a prime and 14mm is too wide, consider one of the TS-E lenses (they're the ultimate architecture/landscape lenses) or something like the 21mm Zeiss.

I had asked about the ultra wide end as well, due to someone mentioning to me that there is a wide Canon lens that is reticular, keeping the barrel distortion to the bare minimum and helping keep the lines straight. I wasn't sure about it and the guy that told me about it, didn't know what lens it was, just that it was an EF lens...

All Canon lenses other than the fisheyes are designed to be rectilinear. Having said that, the two existing full frame ultrawide zooms (16-35 and 17-40) have plenty of distortion, so they're not perfectly rectilinear. The EF-S 10-22 is much better from the distortion point of view, but that doesn't help you at all.

A good prime or correcting in post are your options. It'll be interesting to see what the rumoured 14-24 is like from the distortion point of view, but we'll have to wait for reviews before we know - Canon usually publish MTF charts and say nothing about distortion.

If you want to go for a prime and 14mm is too wide, consider one of the TS-E lenses (they're the ultimate architecture/landscape lenses) or something like the 21mm Zeiss.

I'm definitely interested in how the 14-24mm will review and more importantly, real world... Is there extra work involved in producing images with the TS-E lenses? What is it about the tilt/shift that makes them so good for landscape and architectural? I've heard that before...

To get the best out of TS-E lenses, you're restricted to a tripod and live view. If you're taking an architectural shot with a wide rectilinear lens and you don't want the building to look like its falling over, or the interior walls falling in, you can't point the lens up or down. That can really restrict the placement of the lens and stop you getting the pics you want. A TS-E lens allows you to shift the lens, and using a combination of that and changing where it's pointing, you can correct for it in camera.

Also, the tilt changes the plain of focus from being a flat plain parallel to the sensor to almost any angle you like - so for landscape shots you don't need to suffer from diffraction at f22 to get the ground near and far in focus - just set the lens so the plain of focus is lined up with the ground, focus on that, and choose a sensible aperture such as f8 or f11 for maximum detail.

To get the best out of TS-E lenses, you're restricted to a tripod and live view. If you're taking an architectural shot with a wide rectilinear lens and you don't want the building to look like its falling over, or the interior walls falling in, you can't point the lens up or down. That can really restrict the placement of the lens and stop you getting the pics you want. A TS-E lens allows you to shift the lens, and using a combination of that and changing where it's pointing, you can correct for it in camera.

Also, the tilt changes the plain of focus from being a flat plain parallel to the sensor to almost any angle you like - so for landscape shots you don't need to suffer from diffraction at f22 to get the ground near and far in focus - just set the lens so the plain of focus is lined up with the ground, focus on that, and choose a sensible aperture such as f8 or f11 for maximum detail.

I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...

Depends -- if you're shooting at f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed, FF won't really help because you need to stop down to get the same depth of field so it's a wash. Shooting at f/2.8 on FF is like shooting at f/1.8 on APS-C.

So bottom line is -- FF will help if you're shooting at ISO 100 and f/8 but not if you're using it to get higher shutter speed. Also, fast lenses won't necessarily help much, distortion characteristics are more important

regarding tilt shift the two things it buys you are optical correction of perspective distortion (e.g. straightening out converging verticals for example which is a common problem with wide angle lenses) and also they can help add depth of field

I do use my tripod always for Real estate images and my flash as needed. I know the FF sensor won't solve all the issues with that, but it accepts so much more light than my crop sensor on my 7D, I thought it could be very helpful in post... My 7d has major challenges with noise in the shadows...

Depends -- if you're shooting at f/2.8 to get faster shutter speed, FF won't really help because you need to stop down to get the same depth of field so it's a wash. Shooting at f/2.8 on FF is like shooting at f/1.8 on APS-C.

So bottom line is -- FF will help if you're shooting at ISO 100 and f/8 but not if you're using it to get higher shutter speed. Also, fast lenses won't necessarily help much, distortion characteristics are more important

regarding tilt shift the two things it buys you are optical correction of perspective distortion (e.g. straightening out converging verticals for example which is a common problem with wide angle lenses) and also they can help add depth of field

Being on the tripod and needing most of the real estate work to be in focus, stopping down to f/8 and using iso 100 or slightly more shouldn't be to big of an issue I'm thinking, for that type of work...

The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.

Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though. I'll start pricing out 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and probably look at a 50mm 1.4, although it sounds like that might not get much use... maybe not wide enough...

If budget is not an issue, the new 24-70 II is the way to go. On my copy, Reikan FoCal showed the sharpness at f2.8 is 985. Not many zoom lenses out there have this kind of sharpness at f2.8.

My comment is based on real life shooting.....let me know if you want to see some photos with 5D III.

Many owners of 24-105 claimed their copy is razor sharp, but the Canon MTF chart doesn't indicate that at all. Again...I owned 2 copies of 24-105 in the past and I didn't see that. I ended up shooting alot with 50mm f1.4 @ f1.8 to 2.8.

I upgraded my 7D to a 5Diii this fall. I had the Sigma 10-20mm F3.5, it sort of worked on my 5D at 17mm above but never felt that it was a sharp lens. I got the 16-35mm 2.8L and love it. I shoot some real estate as well and you need to be under 20mm for 50% of most houses. I also have the 24-105mm F4L IS and really glad I took that over the 24-70mm F2.8L. I use that lens mostly as my walk around or if I am only taking one lens out. The IS and reduced shutter for me make a way bigger improvement then the extra stop of light. I can shoot 1/30 sec no problem with it. I also have the 50mm 1.4 and 70-200 F2.8L and covers everything I need.

Also if you keep your camera level, distortion is very minimal on 16-35mm for shooting rooms and easily corrected in RAW processing.

crasher8

LOVE my 24-105 over my former 24-70 brick. I had a sharp copy nothing against the IQ but the weight and heft was just a pain. I have started doing RE gigs and I really have the Jones for a Zeiss 15/18/21. Just wish they didn't have vignetting issues. Well the 18 has it bad. I guess I wish they didn't cost so much, yeah, that's it.

The tilt shifts sound intriguing, I imagine expensive too. Seems like the majority feels like a wider zoom like the 24-105mm isn't a good idea. If I'm going zoom I need to look at the 24-90MM, I'm thinking version 1 or version 2 would be fine.

not sure what you mean, there's 24-70 and 24-105.

These are great general purpose zooms ... but maybe not the best choices as specialized landscape or RE photography lenses. These are more your "walkaround" lenses.

Quote

Seems like primes are the most recommended lenses though.

The issue is distortion. Zooms generally have heavy barrel distortion at the wide end, so if you're shooting at 24mm a lot, a lens that is 24-xx will give you a lot of barrel distortion whereas even an inexpensive prime (e.g. the 24mm f/2. will not. The new 24-70mm for example is sharper at 24mm than the 24mm f/2.8 prime but has much more distortion.

However, if you shoot with an ultra wide like the 17-40 or the 16-35, it's already well out of its widest by 20mm, so you should be able to shoot at 24mm without much trouble with distortion.

Tilts are great but expensive, about $2k for the wide angles (e.g. 17mm or 24mm)

Sounds like we are in a similar position. I made the jump from a 7D to a 5D3 about six months ago. I had the Canon 17-55 and the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end. Obviously sold them, and used the 24-105 for a bit as a replacement. I found that I rarely used it after acquiring the 35L and the 85L. I love my 35L, but it isn't super wide, and I plan to get an ultra wide at some point. Thinking about the Tokina 16-28, Canon 24L or 14L, or wait to see if the rumors of a 14-24L are true. I have found that I prefer primes generally, so personally I wouldn't want the 24-105 at this point, even though I think it is better than my old 17-55. If you liked yours that much, it might be a good solution to sort of bridge the gap between two lenses.

Right now I'm mainly interested in picking up something just to get the wider end. My 70-200L isn't going to do that for me... I hadn't thought of selling the ef-s lenses I have or the Tokina 11-16mm, but that's a great option, since the 7D will take ef lenses anyway... Not sure how long I'll hang on to the 7D anyway...

I hadn't honestly thought about a prime limiting my need for a zoom until you mentioned it, but it kind of makes sense... The only prime I've thought about so far is the 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work, although the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is certainly great for portrait work as well with my 5d3...

I love to shoot landscapes as well and that's kind of what I'm most interested in the wider end for.

If the main goal is having a wide angle lens for landscapes I would start with the Zeiss 21mm Diastagon or one of Canon's TS lenses.

For an all purpose zoom and to close you gap I would look for a good copy of the original 24-70 and not the new expensive plastic version. I have the 24-105 and can't really get myself to like it. It's sharp and all but it gets pretty little use and I much prefer my 50 over it as an all purpose lens. It's good for studio type work - though I bet I'd be happier with a 24-70 and may still try to trade it one day. The build quality is pretty meh as well.

Although the TS-E's are the best for architecture, with the right technique and right software, you can do it on a budget with good results with something like a 17-40 and a tripod.

Just do the usual - carefully align the camera, use an aperture for maximum detail (probably around f11 for depth of field, corner sharpness and avoiding diffraction), and take the shot at the lowest ISO possible for the dynamic range needed - possibly 50 or 100 - if you control the lighting, this shouldn't be an issue.

Just make sure you correct for lens distortion before shifting in software. Please note that the more you do the shift correction digitally, the less of the original image you'll retain, so you'll need to shoot quite a bit wider to compensate.

The issues with this approach are lots of shifted pixels, and using just a cropped part of the sensor. A TS-E allows for you to do the same effect in camera, using the entire FF sensor with no pixels shifted around.